Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Davis
Subject Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)
Date
Msg-id 1106086248.2886.539.camel@jeff
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)  (Sailesh Krishnamurthy <sailesh@cs.berkeley.edu>)
Responses Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 2005-01-18 at 12:45 -0800, Sailesh Krishnamurthy wrote:
> >>>>> "Jonah" == Jonah H Harris <jharris@tvi.edu> writes:
> 
>     Jonah> Replying to the list as a whole:
> 
>     Jonah> If this is such a bad idea, why do other database systems
>     Jonah> use it?  As a businessperson myself, it doesn't seem
>     Jonah> logical to me that commercial database companies would
>     Jonah> spend money on implementing this feature if it wouldn't be
>     Jonah> used.  Remember guys, I'm just trying to help.
> 
> Systems like DB2 don't implement versioning schemes. As a result there
> is no need to worry about maintaining visibility in
> indexes. Index-only plans are thus viable as they require no change in
> the physical structure of the index and no overhead on
> update/delete/insert ops. 
> 
> I don't know about Oracle, which I gather is the only commercial
> system to have something like MVCC.
> 

Perhaps firebird/interbase also? Someone mentioned that on these lists,
I'm not sure if it's true or not.

I almost think to not supply an MVCC system would break the "I" in ACID,
would it not? I can't think of any other obvious way to isolate the
transactions, but on the other hand, wouldn't DB2 want to be ACID
compliant?

Regards,Jeff Davis



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Sailesh Krishnamurthy
Date:
Subject: Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)